The black magic beliefs crack me up. I remember a woman in bangkok who told me never to show my passport to a Thai woman - as she might take the information to a witch doctor who would use it to make an irresistible love spell.

I told her vipassana was stronger than magic but she looked doubtful..

Here is my take.It is a prerogative of a monk to disrobe.However, why not just tell the truth.For example, I fell in love with a woman and I want to marry her.To say that it is a previous life connection is probably true.But the Buddha said we had countless spouses in our previous lives.So, not a very good reason.

The whole teaching of Buddha is how to leave samsara.For someone to spend a lifetime as a monk and then get married, all I wish for is the truth.Dont give excuses.Everyone has the right to live their life the way they like.Just Spare me the b***sh*t.

Hickersonia wrote:I honestly hope they are very happy together and experience as little stress as possible in their marriage. Perhaps they both might yet put an end to suffering in this life? Who knows?

If a husband and wife were both practicing, and supported each other in the practice, they could both benefit. It's complicated and has it's challenges, but I don't see romantic love as the big scary bogeyman it is often made out to be, anymore. It could be that, some folks are better of in a relationship, than alone - even for the cultivation of the practice. Which is better: sitting in a monastery thinking about women all day while you are trying to meditate, or, getting married and being with a woman, then meditating so you can have a break from her? Out of these two alternatives, I would choose the latter. (I'm not implying that the Venerable Ajahn had to make this choice, however.)

Then the Blessed One, picking up a tiny bit of dust with the tip of his fingernail, said to the monk, "There isn't even this much form...feeling...perception...fabrications...consciousness that is constant, lasting, eternal, not subject to change, that will stay just as it is as long as eternity." (SN 22.97)

Maybe he just didn't want to continue with his life at the temple.....perhaps he was no longer inspired by it......perhaps he felt that he was no longer having a beneficial impact there, like a musician who no longer writes music......maybe the couple are just compatible in life style and there is no sensual component at all.

Isn't it a bit like with the laities need for amusement in celebreties, for drama, for who is falling in love with whom. As found with Royals, Moviestars and Popmusicians?

I don't think it's anyones business. To argue he might have broken his precepts befor disrobing, with argueing the woman might be the villain... none of our business and everyone should think much more about ones own conduct. He disrobed, he married her. End of story.

May they be well.

Get the wanting out of waiting

What does womanhood matter at all, when the mind is concentrated well, when knowledge flows on steadily as one sees correctly into Dhamma. One to whom it might occur, ‘I am a woman’ or ‘I am a man’ or ‘I’m anything at all’ is fit for Mara to address. – SN 5.2

If they take what's yours, tell yourself that you're making it a gift.Otherwise there will be no end to the animosity. - Ajahn Fuang Jotiko

As a monk, you enter into a contract with thepeople who support you.A monk is a teacher, a role model and an inspirational figure.To say that a monk who disrobes and marries the woman he lovesis just a career change or he does not owe an explanation tohis supporters means that you do not understand the rolea monk plays in his community and the unique nature of the relationship between a monk and his followers.Quite different from Anne Heche declaring she was gayand then not gay, and went on to marry a man.

hermitwin wrote:As a monk, you enter into a contract with thepeople who support you.A monk is a teacher, a role model and an inspirational figure.To say that a monk who disrobes and marries the woman he lovesis just a career change or he does not owe an explanation tohis supporters means that you do not understand the rolea monk plays in his community and the unique nature of the relationship between a monk and his followers.Quite different from Anne Heche declaring she was gayand then not gay, and went on to marry a man.

Do you have the vinaya reference indicating that a monk has to explain to his supporters the reasons for his disrobing?

Actions tell more than words. He can write 100 books, it won't change the facts.

Besides, the Buddha warned us against relying excessively on someone:

Furthermore, bhikkhus, that person in which an individual has confidence has forsaken the order. He thinks thus: 'This person who is dear and charming to us has forsaken the order'. He does not keep companionship with other fellow bhikkhus. Not keeping companionship with other bhikkhus, he doesn't hear the proper Dhamma. Not hearing the proper Dhamma, he falls away from the proper Dhamma. This, bhikkhus, is the fourth danger of placing confidence in an individual.http://www.buddha-vacana.org/sutta/angu ... 5-250.html

we and others should let him live the life he wishes to and stop gossiping about it.

Get the wanting out of waiting

What does womanhood matter at all, when the mind is concentrated well, when knowledge flows on steadily as one sees correctly into Dhamma. One to whom it might occur, ‘I am a woman’ or ‘I am a man’ or ‘I’m anything at all’ is fit for Mara to address. – SN 5.2

If they take what's yours, tell yourself that you're making it a gift.Otherwise there will be no end to the animosity. - Ajahn Fuang Jotiko

Sekha wrote:Actions tell more than words. He can write 100 books, it won't change the facts.

What facts do you mean? The fact that he wishes to/feels obliged to give an explanation through a book?

Of Course we should "be islands unto yourselves, be your own refuge, having no other; let the Dhamma be an island and a refuge to you, having no other."http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn22/sn22.043.wlsh.html but personally I don't think that that negates what I said: "For those who are close to or who had faith in a teacher, wanting some kind of an explanation seems fairly reasonable when the teacher takes a seemingly dramatic change in direction."

I meant the fact that he disrobed to marry someone speaks by itself. There is no need for any explanation. And no one should ask for any, because either it reveals an attachment to the outcome of generosity, and an inferior motivation thereof, or it is involvement in what is none of our business.

Sekha wrote:I meant the fact that he disrobed to marry someone speaks by itself. There is no need for any explanation. And no one should ask for any, because either it reveals an attachment to the outcome of generosity, and an inferior motivation thereof, or it is involvement in what is none of our business.